Binding electors to the popular vote is unconstitional

[scruffy]

Well, they shot that to pieces in 2020.

Well, they failed to regulate. When ECRA passed at the end of '22 it was updating a 150 year old law.

The way things are set up now, each state must appoint the electors whose PARTY wins the most votes in the state. (That was SCOTUS, electors have to be faithful).

In about 2/3 of the states the party conventions put forward their slates, and in about half the remaining states it's the committees. In every state though, there is some kind of law that restricts who the governor has to approve. CA is one of the weirdest. In Fla the governor can appoint from "within" the party list.

The idea is, that every state goes either this way or that way. They've reduced the electoral college to a binary choice, and then they've taken away the choice.

The most unconstitutional idea of all is the Interstate Compact that tries to bind electors to the national popular vote.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Guarantee Clause.

Congress may regulate the means and methods of state federal elections, to ensure uniformity and guarantee fairness.

The Guarantee Clause requires the United States to guarantee to the states a republican form of government, and provide protection from foreign invasion and domestic violence. Although rarely formally invoked by Congress, the President, or the courts, there is some consensus on what it means.

Interpretation: The Guarantee Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Guarantee Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

At its core, the Guarantee Clause provides for majority rule. A republican government is one in which the people govern through elections. This is the constant refrain of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, put it this way in The Federalist No. 57: “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.”

Thus, the Guarantee Clause imposes limitations on the type of government a state may have. The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through majority vote. Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required.

The Constitution give the power to the states. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,......" It says nothing about the feds have any authority at all except when the federal elections will be.

 

[scruffy]

. The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, ===> even through majority vote. <=== Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required.

You forgot to bold the most important part of the sentence.

 

[BlindBoo]

You forgot to bold the most important part of the sentence.

The part you bolded is to ensure that the States have a Republican form of Government and nothing to do with the selection of Presidential electors.

 

[22lcidw]

The Constitution says states run their own elections. If a state wants to bind their electors to the national popular vote, they may do so.

Why are you going against the Constitution?

I do understand your fear, being that you're part of a shrinking tyrannical minority that only clings to power by cheating.

Remember. As the voting questions continue, we will end up as the worst who do vote. Their ways will be the norm. And it is expanding. In a huge way.

 

[scruffy]

The part you bolded is to ensure that the States have a Republican form of Government and nothing to do with the selection of Presidential electors.

That's the part that YOU bolded.

The part that I bolded absolutely does pertain. If you can't figure it out you can ask some of your fellow leftards, maybe they can help.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The Constitution says states run their own elections. If a state wants to bind their electors to the national popular vote, they may do so.

Why are you going against the Constitution?

I do understand your fear, being that you're part of a shrinking tyrannical minority that only clings to power by cheating.

Your point is correct. I do not fear (unlike scruffy) but rather advocate “binding electors” to “the national popular vote” … as advocated by www.nationalpopularvote.com . I support other reforms like Ranked Choice Voting advocated by the non-partisan www.fairvote.org .

In my opinion there is a problem with the antique Electoral College itself and with too much state authority over Presidential elections as authorized by the Constitution . Ideally we need an Amendment to abolish the Electoral College and state elector slates entirely. IMO, there continues to be a serious danger that politicians in state legislatures, particularly in present but contested “Red” states, will decide to directly choose an electoral slate representing their own party … and thus have the power to ignore the “popular will.”

As I think you pointed out earlier, there is no requirement for states to hold a Presidential election whatever. Of course the idea that states today almost universally assign ALL electors in a winner-take-all way rather than in the original proportional way … has long destroyed the Founders’ original hopes for the Electoral College.

The proposal for the National Popular Vote “Compact” was designed, among other things, to mimic the effect of abolishing the Electoral College without requiring a Constitutional Amendment. However, I suspect our present reactionary Supreme Court would rule it unConstitutional if it received sufficient support to be implemented.

Of course no electoral reform is a “panacea” for the sickness that ails our national body politic today. Still, I am a longtime financial supporter of www.fairvote.org and especially endorse their efforts to broadly introduce “Ranked Choice Voting.”

 

[scruffy]

Your point is correct. I do not fear (unlike scruffy) but rather advocate “binding electors” to “the national popular vote” … as advocated by www.nationalpopularvote.com . I support other reforms like Ranked Choice Voting advocated by the non-partisan www.fairvote.org .

In my opinion there is a problem with the antique Electoral College itself and with too much state authority over Presidential elections as authorized by the Constitution . Ideally we need an Amendment to abolish the Electoral College and state Elector slates entirely. IMO, there continues to be a serious danger that politicians in state legislatures, particularly in presently “Red” states, will decide to directly choose a full slate representing their own party … and thus have the power to ignore the “popular will” even in their own state.

As I think you pointed out earlier, there is no requirement for states to hold a Presidential election whatever. Of course the idea that states today almost universally assign ALL electors in a winner-take-all way rather than in the original proportional way … has long destroyed the Founders’ original hopes for the Electoral College.

The proposal for the National Popular Vote “Compact” was designed, among other things, to mimic the effect of abolishing the Electoral College without requiring a Constitutional Amendment. However, I suspect our present reactionary Supreme Court would rule it unConstitutional if it soon received sufficient support to be implemented.

Of course no electoral reform is a “panacea” for the sickness that ails our national body politic today. Still, I am a longtime financial supporter of www.Fairvote.org , and especially endorse their efforts to broadly introduce “Ranked Choice Voting.”

Okay, we get it. You're a brainless leftard, and you don't know how the system works, and can't tell a check from a balance.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Okay, we get it. You're a brainless leftard, and you don't know how the system works, and can't tell a check from a balance.

Well, I doubt many would agree with you that I am … “brainless” — though compared to your “Trump Party” of paleo-conservatives, authoritarians, reactionary populists, religious fundamentalists, racists, woman-haters, conspiracy nuts and some ordinary folks who know no better … I suppose I am relatively “left wing.”

Let’s just say I’m “left wing” enough to recognize that the “checks” that really matter in our system are the ones that come from corporations and “dark money” PACs, perfectly “legal” since the Supreme Court accepted the right wing arguments of Republican “big money” interests behind “Citizens United.”

 

[BluesLegend]

Relax people, the 29 states listed bind their electors to vote for the State wide popular vote winner.

There are a few POS lowlife filth Dem scumbag states that are trying to OBSTRUCT democracy. Even if the people in their state votes for the Rep, they overturn the will of the people in their state and order their electors to instead vote for the Dem winner in California.

 

[scruffy]

Relax people, the 29 states listed bind their electors to vote for the State wide popular vote winner.

There are a few POS lowlife filth Dem scumbag states that are trying to OBSTRUCT democracy. Even if the people in their state votes for the Rep, they overturn the will of the people in their state and order their electors to instead vote for the Dem winner in California.

Gets it. ^^^

 

[scruffy]

Well, I doubt many would agree with you that I am … “brainless” — though compared to your “Trump Party” of paleo-conservatives, authoritarians, reactionary populists, religious fundamentalists, racists, woman-haters, conspiracy nuts and some ordinary folks who know no better … I suppose I am relatively “left wing.”

Let’s just say I’m “left wing” enough to recognize that the “checks” that really matter in our system are the ones that come from corporations and “dark money” PACs, perfectly “legal” since the Supreme Court accepted the right wing arguments of Republican “big money” interests behind “Citizens United.”

Doesn't get it. ^^^

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Relax people, the 29 states listed bind their electors to vote for the State wide popular vote winner.

There are a few POS lowlife filth Dem scumbag states that are trying to OBSTRUCT democracy. Even if the people in their state votes for the Rep, they overturn the will of the people in their state and order their electors to instead vote for the Dem winner in California.

You are correct about the “binding” that the OP mentioned. The information about that came from the www.FairVote.org website I support with a small regular contribution. I don’t think that sort of binding normally matters much, however, since we are talking here only of pre-picked party-partisan electors who rarely exercise any individual discretion or “jump ship” to support another party’s candidate.

It is obvious you are just interested in making an ultra-partisan point about Presidential elections in California. However, you are absolutely correct if you are saying that in recent years Democrats usually win the state and so select all Electors to the Electoral College that California is entitled to, thus completely disenfranchising the Republican minority there in Presidential elections. This is frankly outrageous.

Here is a fundamental problem in every state (except for Maine & Nebraska). James Madison lived long enough to see party partisanship in states already tending in this direction, forcing other states with different party majorities to adopt the same “legal” partisan maneuver. He argued that this was undercutting the non-party purpose and hoped for representative and flexible character of the Electoral College … and suggested that the whole system should be changed appropriately.

But here we are over 200 years later with the same archaic, abusive and unrepresentative system being used in every state to the advantage of state politicians and to the dismay of millions whose votes really don’t count in majority “Red” or “Blue” states. This adds to cynicism and loss of faith in our democratic system and encourages new forms of political / party abuse.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

29 states and the District of Columbia now have mob rule for federal elections.

Here's the list:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108

FairVote - States that bind electors

archive.fairvote.org

This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution specifically protects us against mob rule, and guarantees that population centers don't overwhelm the rural vote

Something you might have missed:

"There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:"

The electoral votes go to the winner of that state, not the national winner.